1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to the direct evacuation of malicious odor found within restroom toilets and urinals.
2. Prior Art
Prior art techniques relating to the removal of malicious odor are designed to alleviate odor by utilizing devices attached to the waste receptacles via in-tank and external designs. To diminish the malicious odor these designs rely on filtering and/or evacuation of the surrounding area thus attempting to provide fresh air within bathroom facilities.
Filtering systems mounted to the toilets exterior are very unsightly and intrusive objects that attempt to collect the malicious odor by using specialized seats and/or oddly shaped venting apparatuses that are exposed to human waste which inadvertently create routine cleaning hazardous to the user. Moreover, both in-tank and external filtration designs have the same major drawbacks; they require a localized power source to operate, create additional unnecessary routine maintenance, and are commercially infeasible to implement since multiple inline unit configurations are unattainable while being incapable of supporting tank-less pressurized flushing systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,694,534 B2 issued on Feb. 24, 2004 to Earlyn W. Stone shows a prior art example of an in-tank filtration design that tries to clean the odor by filtering and re-circulating the malicious odor. Stone's design is not an effective approach in eliminating malicious odor from restroom facilities because this device could expand the surrounding area of malicious odor if costly filters are not changed on a routine basis. This device is also a hazardous threat to its operators since it requires a specialized battery and/or power source to operate within close proximity to a water source and the operator. Furthermore, commercial integration is infeasible since this invention cannot be used within multiple unit configurations, creates additional routine maintenance, and is incapable of supporting standard tank-less pressurized flushing systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,146 B1 issued on Apr. 3, 2001 to Arturo Gonzalez offers an unsightly external filtration system that filters and re-circulates the malicious odor. This unsightly design is exposed to human waste thus creating health hazards during routine cleaning. Additionally, the required voltage interface is within close proximity to the user further providing a health hazard during operation. Furthermore, commercial viability is infeasible as this design is incapable of multiple inline unit configurations, creates additional routine maintenance and cannot remove odor within standard urinals and pressurized flushing systems.
Evacuation systems also have in-tank and external designs that try to eliminate malicious odor. Unfortunately, these designs still need specialized toilet seats and/or oddly shaped venting apparatuses that are exposed to human waste which inadvertently create routine cleaning hazardous to the user. Moreover, both in-tank and external evacuation designs have the same major drawbacks; they are commercially infeasible to implement within multiple inline unit configurations because odor backflow issues have not been addressed and are incapable of supporting standard tank-less pressurized flushing systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,933 issued on Nov. 30, 1999 to Richard C. Schaffer shows prior art that tries to alleviate odor by an in-tank apparatus that functions by evacuating malicious odor through the flush passage of a toilet. Unfortunately, during an overflow situation where excess tank water drains into the flush passage there is no defense against the suction of water into the exhaust system. Ultimately, a continued presence of water within the exhaust system will eventually render the evacuating system useless. This design is incapable of multiple unit configurations because backflow issues were not taken into account during the design process. If this design were commercially implemented in a multiple inline unit configuration, where a common exhaust system exists, backflow of malicious odor into adjacent inline units would occur since there is no backflow protection. Without backflow protection, this invention is commercially infeasible and very costly to implement while providing no capabilities for odor removal within urinals and pressurized flushing systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,463,595 B2 issued on Oct. 15, 2002 to Anthony Prisco is an external apparatus that functions by evacuating malicious odor away from toilets. Unfortunately, this design does not fully function when the toilet seat is lifted because the odor inlets are not optimally positioned to evacuate malicious odor present within the bowl. Its unnecessarily large and unsightly design inadvertently creates a health hazard during routine maintenance since this apparatus and its associated odor inlets are exposed to human waste. Moreover, this design failed to gain commercial acceptance because backflow issues have not been addressed and cannot fully support standard tank-less pressurized flushing systems such as commercial toilets since the system loses optimal placing of odor inlets when the seat is in the upright position.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,845 issued on Jul. 18, 2000 to Juan Jose Hugo Ceja Estrada shows an external apparatus that functions by evacuating malicious odor away from a non-standard urinal and toilet. If this design were implemented within a commercial environment where multiple inline units share a common exhaust system this design would allow for the backflow of malicious odor into adjacent inline units since there is no backflow control. Without backflow protection, this device is commercially infeasible and very costly to implement since this design requires the use of non-standard toilets and urinals that have separate odor inlets and passageways installed within.
In conclusion, prior art focused on the elimination of malicious odor present within restroom facilities were unsuccessful in resolving the very issue they were designed to solve. These prior art designs failed to meet commercial success because they have reoccurring filter costs, do not provide a professional installation and/or aesthetic appeal, and in many cases hazardous to human health. Furthermore, these designs failed to gain commercial acceptance because backflow issues have not been addressed and cannot function within multiple inline unit configurations and are incapable of fully supporting standard tank-less pressurized flushing systems such as commercial toilets and urinals.